United States v. Ernest G. Moore

Good Law
90 Daily Journal DAR 14000·921 F.2d 207·1990 WL 198297·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21260·90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8962
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 11, 199087-3626California1,416 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wright, J.

Moore appeals pro se the denial of his section 2255 motion. He alleges his incarceration is illegal because his convictions were based on insufficient evidence, error in jury instructions, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and improper denial of an evidentiary hearing on this motion. We affirm.

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

In 1977, an informant, Krossman, told the FBI that Moore and others planned to rob a bank in Milwaukie, Oregon. The FBI provided Krossman with a “stolen” car that the others expected to use in the robbery. FBI agents waited in a van near the bank and arrested Moore and another man as they walked toward the bank. Moore wore a ski mask. He carried gloves, two pillowcases in his pocket, and a loaded gun concealed in the waistband of his trousers.

He and two others were charged with attempted bank robbery, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), and with use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1). At trial, Moore admitted that he had a gun, ski mask, gloves and pillowcases, and did not deny participation in the attempted robbery. His defense was that he participated solely at the urging and insistence of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.